Re: [CR] Subject: Cranks and BCD, old + new

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Campagnolo)

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:32:44 -0500
From: "Daniel Artley" <dartley@baltimorecountymd.gov>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Subject: Cranks and BCD, old + new


Culled from what Nick March <Nicbordeaux> wrote: <<' ... When you get to know your bike, you only use about six gears anyway, three gears from the outer covers most flat or mild uphill, downhill once you are spinning on high it's just as easy to take a breather in a moderate "aero tuck".'>>

Seems a lot of people with rando bikes are fine with a 48 - 50 tooth high gear. I'm more of a get my speed kicks on the descent kind of guy, and I like to have something to pedal against when I'm descending. It makes the bike feel more 'planted'. One of my old bike hero's, John Howard, was credited with the slogan '52's don't cut it!' and I agree with my 53 high gear on virtually all my derailleur'd road bikes. I've never had a hill steep enough on a single to spin out a 12 on the back, but a 13 is just about perfect. I can wind up a 13 to a higher speed, then tuck, better than pushing a 12.

I've got modern cranks on two bikes, but find that the 'Q' factor gets to the balls of my feet, and prefer the older style TA, Stronglight, Campagnolo's. Lately my crank of choice seems to be the venerable 49D with all those TA chainring choices and a more bulletproof crankarm. I started out with a TA on my custom tourer in the 70's because they were cheap and I could buy exactly the rings I wanted. Other cranks came with not necessarily my choice of rings. As much as I also like Campagnolo NR cranks and have one w/ an aftermarket 74 mm bolt circle set up as half step and granny, the hills around my house are tough for the basic 42 x 26 low I can use on them. I've found the Mavic SSC starfish crankset (another low 'Q' factor crank, and I'm not sure of the bolt circle) and it's matching rear derailleur with it's sliding jockey cage to allow a 39 x 28 easily. With that I can ride the local hills pretty well.

Doubles and triples both have their place, but I do prefer a triple to a wide range double almost always. The difference in weight is negligible to me, and I still like close gears with a wide range.

Happy trails,

Dan Artley in Parkton, Maryland USA

Archive-URL: http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrendez vous.10901.1311.eml From: Kai Hilbertz <khilbertz(AT)googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:41:54 +0100 Subject: [CR] Cranks and BCD, old + new ( http://search.bikelist.org/query .asp?SearchString=%22Cranks+and+BCD%2C+old+%2B+new%22&amp;SearchPrefix= %40msgsubject&amp;SortBy=MsgDate%5Ba%5D )

Hello List,

not too many responses so far, I was hoping to get something resembling a mini survey going. Perhaps my long original post scared most folks off.

To recap in simplified form, my questions to the List are: 1. What is/are your favorite BCD(s) for your cranks? 2. Do you use only vintage cranks, or post '83 cranks as well? 3. Do you like doubles or triples? Favorite gearing?
>From 151 to 50.4 mm, or even beyond, let us know!

Greets

Kai Hilbertz
Munich, Germany